One argument I Couldn't Beat

Status
Not open for further replies.
You don't take the shot unless you can make the shot. Remember the 4 rules of firearms safety. All guns are loaded. Keep your finger out of the trigger guard until ready to shoot. Don't point at anything you are not willing to see destroyed. Be sure of your backstop and beyond.
Certainly, an exigency might (might) change your priorities; if someone is about to die, you may fudge a little on the rules to distract the shooter, and innocents sometimes get killed (though rarely) by bullets intended for the BG. But the situation as presented is akin to doing without electricity for fear of being electrocuted, or not learning how to swim because you are afraid to get wet.
 
I'm not qualified to discuss the issue, but since no one has mentioned it, there is an issue of legal liability in the scenario suggested. Even police departments get sued for shooting innocent bystanders.

That said, Cho killed as many as he did because he returned to shoot them more than once. It is possible that all 32 victims might have been saved by a person able to shoot back before that return was possible.

In any case, having a firearm opens the door to possibilities for defense. If you think it too risky to take a shot, you can always choose to die rather than shoot. Without the firearm, you may not have any choice in the matter.
 
So I guess it would be better to let the phycho keep killing people until the police arrive, formulate a plan, and finally storm the building with automatic weapons, or just wait until he has killed so many innocent people that he runs out of ammo.

The kind of thinking I see coming out of institutions of higher education makes me wonder what it is they use to get 'high'!
 
I would rather die from being accidentally shot by a well-intentioned CCW'er trying to end a massacre than being gunned down by a maniac. In fact, I would EXPECT the CCW'er to draw and fire on the maniac if I was in that crowd of people being massacred.

While I would hope he/she has the wherewithal to get the job done with little to no collateral damage, but if there was some collateral damage, and I was part of that damage, I would not have any hard feelings toward him/her.

I certainly would not allow my family to file a civil suit for damages against the CCW'er if I had anything to do with it.
 
Last edited:
Special_K - So now that you have read all of the responses, what are your thoughts on the subject?
 
Seems like an easy one to me. An armed individual, attempting to stop a single attacker, is a much smaller risk to the people around him than the assailant. Besides, the fleeing crowd might just as easily tramble someone or push them into the line of fire. Who is really more dangerous: the man who has prepared himself for the situation, or the man who has nothing to do but panic and flee?
 
+2 Felony murder

The whack job would be charged with the accidental death your gun caused from defending yourself against his felonius rampage.

And, you would have done the right thing by saving lives. And, you would relive that shot for the rest of your life, probably every time you blinked or tried to sleep.
 
You don't take the shot unless you can make the shot. Remember the 4 rules of firearms safety. All guns are loaded. Keep your finger out of the trigger guard until ready to shoot. Don't point at anything you are not willing to see destroyed. Be sure of your backstop and beyond.
Certainly, an exigency might (might) change your priorities; if someone is about to die, you may fudge a little on the rules to distract the shooter, and innocents sometimes get killed (though rarely) by bullets intended for the BG. But the situation as presented is akin to doing without electricity for fear of being electrocuted, or not learning how to swim because you are afraid to get wet.

Plus 'leventeen, especially the first paragraph. Your self-knowledge of your ability (skill/training/mindset) plus the Four Rules will guide you. Actually, it wouldn't be any bad thing to slip the Four Rules into any gun conversation with an anti, at an appropriate time.

Anti: "You guys think you can just blaze away like Dirty Harry and be a big hero..."

Us (smiling): "Actually, you'd be surprised. Practically the first thing anyone learns when he or she takes up the shooting sports is the Four Rules:

"Treat every gun as though it's loaded at all times.
"Never put your finger inside the trigger guard unless you're ready to shoot.
"Never point the muzzle at anything you're not willing to destroy.
"Be sure of your target and what's beyond it...."
 
Been there, done that.

When some twit worries about people being ACCIDENTALLY shot when somebody stops a mass shooting, I say something to the effect of:

"So what you're saying is that you prefer the CERTAINTY of being murdered by a killer than the CHANCE of being wounded by the person who stops him?"
 
All I see is that, once some person pulls out a gun and intends to shoot up the joint, as t were, there will probably be very little crowd around them very fast. So if you are concerned about accuracy, close the distance as much as possible, then fire.
 
While on the surface it is an interesting question if you look a little deeper into the facts of these shootings you will see it is implausible at best .

If anyone has paid attention all of these shootings have occurred as we all know 1 in a gun free environment with nothing but helpless victims yes but look a little deeper .

They have all occurred during class hours not in between classes in the halls with students everywhere .

Why ?

Simple the shooters want to completely control the situation and as is the case with most cowards prevent a risk to themselves despite the fact they maybe planning on killing themselves in the end .

There is a huge difference between swiftly ending ones life and being wounded in a gunfight with the police or an armed citizen and even more so of opening fire in a crowded hallway and having a very real risk of being blindsided or attacked from behind and having the living daylights beaten out of you and having to go through the humiliation of a trial and then live in prison .

You notice they always pick a typical academic class in session with perhaps 30-40 and not say a high school P.E class with maybe 100 kids . For one the normal class has females who are more prone to panic and simply freeze vs an all male class with teenage boys full of testosterone who could very well rush a shooter and beat them to death .

When you enter a room and open fire you leave your intended victims with three choices , Run , Hide , or Confront the threat the vast majority will run or hide even if running means jumping out of a window and hiding means you may be found and shot as they see that as a less chance than being shot trying to be a hero rushing the shooter .

A legally Armed student in the typical school shooting wont be faced with this problem as the shooter wont be surrounded by classmates but will station himself alone blocking the door to prevent escape . When the shooting starts the average response will be for students to attempt to use tables as cover and will be on the floor well out of the way of any return fire and as classes will be in progress the chances of a student being in the hall and in the line of his fire will be almost nonexistent .

They all also know the typical response is for the school to go into lock down mode which only aids them in their killing spree .
 
plexreticle said:
It's a stupid hypothetical argument. Why worry about accidental shooting when someone is mowing down unarmed students?

I can appreciate your intent to end the attack as fast as possible, but the anti's argument is a valid concern. Students carrying concealed weapons is not a perfect solution to the problem, but it is a good starting point.

If you're going to CCW you should consider the hypotheticals and be practiced and determined to take a clear shot. That doesn't mean you sit there and wait for it to be clear, but you can use your feet to get to a clear line of fire, or kneel down so the line of fire goes over people behind the attacker. Even then there might be an "accident." But it is worth worrying about IMO.

IDPA and other handgun competitions that intersperse "non threat" targets with the "hostile" targets are not only good practice, but good proof that even concealed carriers routinely blast holes right through the non-threats. I'm not saying they all do, but many are literally more concerned about being fast than they are about hitting the non-threats. (Ironically, the penalty for hitting a non-threat usually puts them out of the running for being the fastest.) And of course, some take their time being determined not to hit the non threat, but they still do because they haven't mastered the accuracy of their handgun. I've watched people methodically pump round after round into a non-threat while trying to hit the hostile target. Painful! I can only imagine how bad it would be under the stress of a real attack. The first time I hit a non-threat it was actually disturbing to me and I made it my top priortity on any stage to never let that happen again.
 
knowing full well that I could miss or the bullet could go through the bad guy and hit someone behind them.

not to get off subject, but this always alarms me...

you (and all) carry hollow points in your weapon...right? Is anyone carrying carrying standard rounds?
 
Is anyone carrying carrying standard rounds?
Many do
Start a thread on it and you will get many reasons


Simple answer to the first question

Sometimes it's better to do something wrong than to do nothing right

Miss your shot at the BG or shoot through him you may injure or kill an innocent
Do nothing and you can watch as he injures and kills more innocents

Gonna be hard to live with either action, but there is a better chance that more people will be left alive if you take the shot
 
I've never understood why people are so willing to accept that a well-meaning, law-abiding person with a gun is more dangerous to bystanders than a criminal who is intent on murdering those very same bystanders.

It's gotten so bad that I think that some gun-owners actually believe this about themselves.
 
I had to come out of the shadows and register after seeing this question.

At least in my state, (Wisconsin) we have what is known as the "Greater Danger Theory".

Basically, if that individual is an active threat (and that definition is met by the criteria the original post offered) then you have a legal right to use deadly force. You may even have a legal obligation to, as you are capable of offering assitance. (let me stress, that a legal obligation to act doesn't free you of civil liability!)

In other words, failing to act will result in a higher chance of great bodily harm to others or yourself.

There really is no easy answer, and there is some legal precedent to act. In the end it will be situation dependent.

My answer to your friend: Just as every US citizen is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, every person with the right to carry should be considered competent in judgment until proven otherwise.

Concerning CCW at a campus - if they get a lick of federal or state aid, they should be required to abide by the letter of the law without pre-emption.

(I am not a lawyer nor am I giving legal advise, your specific state laws may differ. I am only giving insight based on training and experience.)

Edit: On the note of overpenetration, if you stopped the threat and there is no reasonable doubt further deaths would have resulted from not using deadly force - you will be fine in a criminal case against you. However if the round overpenetrates and damages another individual - call a lawyer. You will most likely win a civil case, but there is no law preventing tort in such a situation that I am aware of.
 
My guess is that what they fear is the projection of their own irresponsibility and lack of character on other people. Because they cannot control themselves and don't believe that they would behave responsibly, thoughtfully, and competently in a deadly force situation, they can't imagine that anyone with a Concealed Weapons Permit would behave any better. Theirs is a failure of the imagination, the intellect, and the character.

bingo. This is one of the underlying currents in an anti's brain. They can't imagine themselves taking control of their own life and protecting it, how could you? They can't imagine shooting another human being, how could you? This is exactly the argument I ended up in with an anti a month ago.

"Are you telling me that if a burglar broke into your house, whipped out a weapon, and told you he was going to kill you that you would not want a gun to defend yourself?"

"That is right, I would rather die than take another person's life over my property."

"We aren't talking about your property, we are talking about your life. He is going to kill you and you won't stop him?"

"No, I could never do that. Could you?"

I'm not sure that someone who is actually willing to hand over their life so willingly is deserving of the vote that can pass laws to restrict my right to defend my own life. I told him he must not have much to live for and it was a shame he projected his own fears onto others.
 
What happens to the people around the gunman? Nothing worse than was going to happen anyway.

Having armed citizens on the scene at least give people options other than hidind under a desk, which historically has not worked too well for too many people.

Your friend has a weak argument.
 
As others have stated, people do not usually huddle around someone that is killing at random. After a very brief period of time the gunman should make a very easy target since everyone else will be taking cover.
 
Robert, please write your representatives on this issue if you have not already. Your focus is keen, your point is well thought out and conveyed. Excellent work sir, just excellent.
 
If I was at VT during the shooting, and had the choice of killing Cho myself, and maybe injuring or killing an innocent before he took a single life, or letting him do his killing spree, then...

I would easily chose option A. If I couldn't defend myself successfully in court, at least I could sleep at night (even if in prison).

And that's that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top